Well, well, well..
Jul. 18th, 2003 04:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
misscamChange of tone from Blair
So now suddenly the emphasis is on how utterly horrid Saddam was and that itself was justificasion for war... I gather they are not expecting to find evidence of WMD (at least not substancial enough) any more, then. So we are to forget that the pre-war case was all about how big a threat Saddam was and his WMDs then?
My problems with this are plenty, among them:
1) Saddam has been a horrid ass for decades, and the West has known and done nothing. In fact, the US supported him, even when he gassed the Kurds. So suddenly *now* we all got a conscience?
2) There are plenty of horrid asses out there ruling countries. North Korea, Burma, Zimambwe, to name three. So, since Saddam was a horrid ass and he was disposed of for being an horrid ass, then the aforementioned three countries should be having a regiment change too. Otherwise, it's being a big fat hypocrit.
3) Where do you draw the line? Shall we invade all countries who have asses in power, or just the really bad ones? How do one know which ass is being the most horrid? What if the people of a country elect an ass to power - does the world really have a right to step in?
4) If the US and UK cannot prove that Saddam had WMD, there goes any lingering trust. The Arab world will think this was about oil, because the US very conviniently overlooks what to them is a much worse ass (Israel - I'm not saying Israel is, I'm just pointing out that to the Arab world they are, due to the Palestinian situation)
Either way, I'm feeling a great deal of dread over it.
Blair said he believes history will justify the war on Iraq. I fear the world can't really afford for him to be wrong. If the cap between the West and the Arab world widens, terrorism is only likely to get worse. There's always someone willing to die for a cause. There's always fundamentalists - be it Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush. Sometimes I wonder if not good intentions create just as much harm as those who has only bad things as their purpose. What does that then say about me, who like to think of myself as having good intentions?
I guess if the world was easy, it would come with a manual. Blair could use one, if he wants to smooth things over with Europe, his own party and his own voters. When I was last in the UK, people had started nicknaming him 'Dictator Blair'. I liked Blair once. (Note the past tense, please) Now, I don't know.
In other news, writing desire seems to return slightly, so I've scribbled a bit. Huzzah. There's a heatwave over Norway nowadays, so it's hard to not just stay outside and laze days away in the hot sun. We had a very dramatic thunderstorm today, though. Also found Discworld Noir among my old stuff, so have been playing it. Ah, Pratchett. I worship thee.
It seems to me that the more dire the world gets, the more important humour is. But then, I am from Northern Norway, where humour has always been a way to deal with the world's shittiness. There's not much else you have, when even good intentions sometimes do more harm than good.
So now suddenly the emphasis is on how utterly horrid Saddam was and that itself was justificasion for war... I gather they are not expecting to find evidence of WMD (at least not substancial enough) any more, then. So we are to forget that the pre-war case was all about how big a threat Saddam was and his WMDs then?
My problems with this are plenty, among them:
1) Saddam has been a horrid ass for decades, and the West has known and done nothing. In fact, the US supported him, even when he gassed the Kurds. So suddenly *now* we all got a conscience?
2) There are plenty of horrid asses out there ruling countries. North Korea, Burma, Zimambwe, to name three. So, since Saddam was a horrid ass and he was disposed of for being an horrid ass, then the aforementioned three countries should be having a regiment change too. Otherwise, it's being a big fat hypocrit.
3) Where do you draw the line? Shall we invade all countries who have asses in power, or just the really bad ones? How do one know which ass is being the most horrid? What if the people of a country elect an ass to power - does the world really have a right to step in?
4) If the US and UK cannot prove that Saddam had WMD, there goes any lingering trust. The Arab world will think this was about oil, because the US very conviniently overlooks what to them is a much worse ass (Israel - I'm not saying Israel is, I'm just pointing out that to the Arab world they are, due to the Palestinian situation)
Either way, I'm feeling a great deal of dread over it.
Blair said he believes history will justify the war on Iraq. I fear the world can't really afford for him to be wrong. If the cap between the West and the Arab world widens, terrorism is only likely to get worse. There's always someone willing to die for a cause. There's always fundamentalists - be it Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush. Sometimes I wonder if not good intentions create just as much harm as those who has only bad things as their purpose. What does that then say about me, who like to think of myself as having good intentions?
I guess if the world was easy, it would come with a manual. Blair could use one, if he wants to smooth things over with Europe, his own party and his own voters. When I was last in the UK, people had started nicknaming him 'Dictator Blair'. I liked Blair once. (Note the past tense, please) Now, I don't know.
In other news, writing desire seems to return slightly, so I've scribbled a bit. Huzzah. There's a heatwave over Norway nowadays, so it's hard to not just stay outside and laze days away in the hot sun. We had a very dramatic thunderstorm today, though. Also found Discworld Noir among my old stuff, so have been playing it. Ah, Pratchett. I worship thee.
It seems to me that the more dire the world gets, the more important humour is. But then, I am from Northern Norway, where humour has always been a way to deal with the world's shittiness. There's not much else you have, when even good intentions sometimes do more harm than good.
